|
Majorian posted:How is either statement the wrong takeaway? Tbf the system absolutely does work. The system we're living in is working incredibly well today. It's just not actually a system for things like enacting popular opinion or protecting human rights, unfortunately
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 00:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 13:49 |
|
|
I do legitimately struggle with whether voting for a Bad Dem is better than not. Yes a Bad Dem is better than any Republican in the short term, but a successful Bad Dem goes on to have a huge impact in the next primary, not to mention potential for a career further up the ladder. Specifically this year, I'm struggling with whether it's better to have 4 years of a Republican governor in Minnesota, or vote to re-elect our bootlicking, do-nothing centrist Dem governor. No one ran against him in the primary. Whereas if he had lost four years ago, we would have had a Dem primary this year, which would have been an opportunity to get a better person in. What's worse? I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 00:33
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:No they didn't, and this is an inaccurate summary of what happened. If you're going to "well actually" people you should get the facts correct I don't see anything in this that contradicts anything I said? The Dems did attempt to codify Roe into law, and they did in fact send a bill to the floor of the Senate and vote on whether to move it forward, and the effort was in fact doomed from the start because Manchin didn't like the bill and refused to back it. I don't see how whether or not it was filibustered is really relevant to that point: any bill will fail when the vote is 49-51, and the exact stage in the process at which it fails 49-51 is not super duper relevant. theCalamity posted:Thank you. The nuclear option requires 50 votes, and the Dems have only consistently been able to line up 48 votes behind ending the filibuster. In other words, if just two Republican senators (or Manchin and Sinema) were to be replaced with Democrats who were willing to overturn the filibuster, then the filibuster could be ended. FlapYoJacks posted:The Dems have had 50 years to do this. It’s too late now. We voted time and time again. What on earth makes you think this time would be any different? Because now the Supreme Court is anti-abortion and Roe has been overruled, which makes the codification of Roe a significantly more pressing matter than it was back then. Just because Democrats didn't rush to pass a law guaranteeing abortion back when it was literally unconstitutional to ban abortion doesn't mean that they won't pass a law guaranteeing abortion now that it's illegal in over a dozen states. The situation has changed in ways that actually matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 00:36
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Voting for a carveout isn't the same thing as voting to end it and it's dishonest to claim it is. You'll have to link me to the September vote because I'm looking at senate.gov right now and the only 48-50 vote that entire month I can find was a cloture vote It is weird how all the leftists seem to place a lot of value on performative action that they acknowledge will fail, and then get mad that the performative action accomplished nothing. You want to know how a vote to end the filibuster would go? There - you had it. There is 0 interest from Sinema and Manchin, and they have no qualms putting their names to it. If anything, they would love to show how they are standing up against the rest of the Democrats again and again. It is not quite the "make them publically own their vote" catch people here seem to think it is. I get a lot of people here are angry and stressed, but making up alternate realities where you can pass major legislation on 48 votes, or overturn Supreme Court if you just try hard enough, isn't helpful. This outcome was locked in on November 8, 2016. If you were really in denial, perhaps you could have held out until Judge Barrett was confirmed. Asking the Democrats to do something now is just performative anger. There is literally nothing of substance they can do at this point. There don't have the votes to pass anything. The only thing left to do is vote for your governor/state legislature races this November to keep your state from turning into hellworld, or move to a blue state. Since life existed on earth, if the conditions where you were sucked, you moved. It sucks that that is where we are at now, but that is the reality. You are not flipping the court over the next 2 decades, and a lot worse will be coming down the pipeline, so get ready to move.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 00:37
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Tbf the system absolutely does work. The system we're living in is working incredibly well today. It's just not actually a system for things like enacting popular opinion or protecting human rights, unfortunately https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does Many people ITT would do well to get a brief familiarity with systems thinking, or even (horror horrors) materialist analysis. As I said earlier, liberal ideology abstracts very real human motivations and power dynamics to the point where they aren't even there, and just become subsumed under an assumption that all participants follow certain norms and rules - and this provides cover for their own ineffectiveness. Fascism does not do this: as an ideology, it is keenly aware of power, and driven by it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 00:39
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Because now the Supreme Court is anti-abortion and Roe has been overruled, which makes the codification of Roe a significantly more pressing matter than it was back then. On what earth is “some time in the last 50 years they should have codified abortion into federal law” rushing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 00:43
|
|
|
The ruling that came down today has made me deeply upset. Even living in Canada doesn’t change how I feel about it because I’m sad for all the people who will be hurt or have their lives irrevocably changed. I’m sad for all the women out there who are now not going to be living their fullest lives because they always gotta cope with the spectre of roe v Wade. Is there ANY hope what so ever at this point? Because it sounds like they’re just gonna systematically dismantle all the gains we’ve had since the 1960s and continue past that until we regress to the era where women stay at home barefoot and pregnant bearing kids for men they don’t even like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 00:50
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The nuclear option requires 50 votes, and the Dems have only consistently been able to line up 48 votes behind ending the filibuster. There states up for grabs on a national level are exactly the kind of states that produced Mancin and Sinema. Those two are the result of a party leadership that has not, and continues not to make reproductive rights a priority. Nancy Pelosi has literally said that pro choice focus was "hurting the party", she just finished campaigning for a member of congress that is anti reproductive rights against a primary challenger who did support reproductive rights. How many loving times do these assholes need to show you where the priorities lies before the plan changes from this old bullshit of "ok gang, but seriously if we just give them more votes and more money this time"
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 00:55
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:Is there ANY hope what so ever at this point? Because it sounds like they’re just gonna systematically dismantle all the gains we’ve had since the 1960s and continue past that until we regress to the era where women stay at home barefoot and pregnant bearing kids for men they don’t even like. Unless Democrats act on their words as well as Republicans do... not really, in my perspective. This is an extremely unpopular decision on a population basis-- the majority of people in this country do not want this! But until enough people in power stand up to be a voice for the suppressed, what can change?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 00:55
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:Is there ANY hope what so ever at this point? no, at least not peacefully. the supreme court and the senate need to be done away with entirely for this country to have any hope. that is not going to happen short of a civil war and/or balkanization and neither is a likely scenario. voting is not going to get us out of this while a minority can still rule over everything, and that is our only future if the fundamental way our government is structured does not get an overhaul, which will absolutely not happen because the people in those positions would much rather keep them. like, i legit do not see any way out of this fuckin hell we live in, and furthermore i have no doubts at all that obergefell will be thrown out the window some time before 2030.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 00:57
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Because now the Supreme Court is anti-abortion and Roe has been overruled, which makes the codification of Roe a significantly more pressing matter than it was back then. They literally had two months warning this was going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 01:01
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:The ruling that came down today has made me deeply upset. Even living in Canada doesn’t change how I feel about it because I’m sad for all the people who will be hurt or have their lives irrevocably changed. I’m sad for all the women out there who are now not going to be living their fullest lives because they always gotta cope with the spectre of roe v Wade. Anecdotally, there have always been a lot of people who just wrote off culture war issues like abortion as things they don't have to care about because the court ruled on it already, and they saw rhetoric arguing otherwise as political nonsense which they could safely ignore. It is hard to say how many people this described who should have taken the threat from the GOP more seriously, but most of us anecdotally know some of these clueless idiots. Later this year it won't be a guess anymore, we will really know if the American people give a poo poo about the direction of the country or not. If the GOP got wiped the gently caress out in November (which is a big if) then things would change very fast in both parties. If these issues are met with "eh it seems bad but I care more about inflation" and the GOP isn't punished then we may be hosed in the short term.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 01:04
|
|
|
Separation of Powers in the United States is associated with the Checks and Balances system. The Checks and Balances system provides each branch of government with individual powers to check the other branches and prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 01:07
|
|
|
ted hitler hunter posted:Separation of Powers in the United States is associated with the Checks and Balances system. The Checks and Balances system provides each branch of government with individual powers to check the other branches and prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. Where is the check or balance against a far-right and far-overreaching 6-3 majority in the judicial branch?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 01:09
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Anecdotally, there have always been a lot of people who just wrote off culture war issues like abortion as things they don't have to care about because the court ruled on it already, and they saw rhetoric arguing otherwise as political nonsense which they could safely ignore. It is hard to say how many people this described who should have taken the threat from the GOP more seriously, but most of us anecdotally know some of these clueless idiots. The GOP isn't going to get wiped out. Be serious, the chance of either party getting wiped out is lower than ever. The division between the parties is cleaner than ever and both sides have their bases at maximum engagement. The people who are angry at Republicans now were just as angry in 2020 and 2018. The only real chance of a blowout at this point is if something happens to significantly demoralize the base of one party or the other. Unfortunately for the Democrats the biggest things that could demoralize voters right now are the economy absolutely eating poo poo under Biden and abortion rights being effortlessly torpedoed. Both of which would demoralize Democrat voters. Republicans are kicking rear end, they have nothing to be unhappy about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 01:11
|
|
|
Framboise posted:Where is the check or balance against a far-right and far-overreaching 6-3 majority in the judicial branch? hold on let me check this 250-year-old document written by rich white slaveowners and i'll get back to you
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 01:12
|
|
|
Framboise posted:Where is the check or balance against a far-right and far-overreaching 6-3 majority in the judicial branch? All the bits in the Declaration of Independence that talk about resisting tyrannical government. Unfortunately the context of that was also still a bunch of old white slave owners grumpy that they had to pay taxes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 01:14
|
|
|
FlapYoJacks posted:On what earth is “some time in the last 50 years they should have codified abortion into federal law” rushing? I thought I was fairly clear in my statement that passing laws against abortion bans wasn't seen as a particularly pressing matter when it was already legal to ban abortion. It's not like this is unique to the Dems, either. Leftist politicians like Bernie Sanders weren't exactly making codifying Roe their top priority; hell, they hardly mentioned it until Trump put a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Ciprian Maricon posted:There states up for grabs on a national level are exactly the kind of states that produced Mancin and Sinema. Those two are the result of a party leadership that has not, and continues not to make reproductive rights a priority. Nancy Pelosi has literally said that pro choice focus was "hurting the party", she just finished campaigning for a member of congress that is anti reproductive rights against a primary challenger who did support reproductive rights. None of this stuff changes the fact that there's 49 votes for codifying Roe into federal law, and probably 48 for ending the filibuster to do so. By definition, adding two more Dems to the Senate who are willing to vote for those things will allow the codification of Roe. That's just basic arithmetic. Bringing up Pelosi and members of the House seems like a non-sequitur when you consider that the House already passed a law codifying Roe. It stalled in the Senate, but there's ample evidence that regardless of what Pelosi says, she has the votes to protect abortion and has been willing to use them. There are 21 GOP-held Senate seats going up for reelection this year. Two of them are in OK, so that's 20 states. If twenty states are all so deeply anti-abortion that it's impossible to elect a pro-abortion candidate in any of them, then I don't really understand where you expect the political support for a federal abortion guarantee to come from. Framboise posted:Where is the check or balance against a far-right and far-overreaching 6-3 majority in the judicial branch? Congress can change the laws the Supreme Court is using as a basis for their rulings. In the case of rulings on constitutionality, they even have the ability to change the Constitution. Though in practice, the bar for doing that is rather high when they could simply pack the court or impeach justices instead. The Supreme Court isn't actually all-powerful. It's just that modern Congresses have been too politically paralyzed to use the powers they have and exercise the checks and balances that already exist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 01:17
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I don't see anything in this that contradicts anything I said? The Dems did attempt to codify Roe into law, and they did in fact send a bill to the floor of the Senate and vote on whether to move it forward, and the effort was in fact doomed from the start because Manchin didn't like the bill and refused to back it. It's relevant because it skips a bunch of steps to just conclude "Manchin!!!  " while eliding the actual dynamics at play during that vote by presenting it as a straight up-or-down decision that failed by a razor-thin margin. Failing a cloture vote with 50 vs failing a cloture vote with 49, especially on arguably the most high-profile individual issue, signals to everyone that yeah actually you could pass the bill if the filibuster wasn't in the way, but you need to get rid of it first, which then puts a lot of pressure on Democrats who aren't named Joe Manchin who were otherwise completely protected from having to make any difficult decisions. Manchin's goofball explanation for "not liking the bill" or whatever meant nothing, and it wasn't what decided his vote. It was just filibuster defense, and it workedSimply saying "well the bill failed 49-51" isn't an accurate presentation of what actually happened and implies a level of action that didn't actually occur
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 01:18
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I thought I was fairly clear in my statement that passing laws against abortion bans wasn't seen as a particularly pressing matter when it was already legal to ban abortion. It's not like this is unique to the Dems, either. Leftist politicians like Bernie Sanders weren't exactly making codifying Roe their top priority; hell, they hardly mentioned it until Trump put a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Democrats have held both houses of Congress and the presidency for almost two years since then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 01:19
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I thought I was fairly clear in my statement that passing laws against abortion bans wasn't seen as a particularly pressing matter when it was already legal to ban abortion. It's not like this is unique to the Dems, either. Leftist politicians like Bernie Sanders weren't exactly making codifying Roe their top priority; hell, they hardly mentioned it until Trump put a conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 01:20
|
|
|
Framboise posted:Unless Democrats act on their words as well as Republicans do... not really, in my perspective. A majority of people may want abortion to stay legal, but polls were done that asked people if the overturning of Roe v Wade made them more likely to participate in the mid-terms and 57% of voters said no. Only a third said yes. The country just does not value women's rights at a high enough level that they would be willing to do something to protect them. The same is likely true of gay and interracial marriage. Sure people are in favor of protecting those things if it could just materialize into being from thin air, but when that is the extent of your commitment, it is no surprise you are going to lose them to people who are gung-ho about taking them away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 01:21
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
Then the Dems are not a party. Full stop. If they can't get their own members in vital positions to act the right way in a (supposed) pillar of their platform, they are a failure. Of course, they are experts at twisting the arms of holdouts when it's what they really care about : the progressive wing compromised and divorced BBB from the budget to get it passed, and got....um, jack poo poo for it. Several congresspeople were subtly and not-so-subtly threatened with losing their perks over the ACA. You could give them 57 seats and 8 people would still find reasons to waffle, decide it's not a priority, say it's against their faith, that it makes their donors sad, or upset the GOP and ruin the all-important bipartisan harmony with people calling them pedophiles! In contrast, it literally took John McCain having nine toes in the grave, PLUS being personally shat upon by the president, for the GOP to break ranks, once. They care about protecting the new aristocracy, showering money on CIA spooks suffering from Havana Fairy Curse, and serving as the cushion when the financial casino goes bust. There's alwas expediency and votes for that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 01:23
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:None of this stuff changes the fact that there's 49 votes for codifying Roe into federal law, and probably 48 for ending the filibuster to do so. By definition, adding two more Dems to the Senate who are willing to vote for those things will allow the codification of Roe. That's just basic arithmetic. It is not a non-sequitur. Its not simple arithmetic that more Democrats = More votes for reproductive rights because as is shown by Pelosi's efforts to support Cuellar, party leadership is unwilling to have it be a litmus test. Main Paineframe posted:There are 21 GOP-held Senate seats going up for reelection this year. Two of them are in OK, so that's 20 states. If twenty states are all so deeply anti-abortion that it's impossible to elect a pro-abortion candidate in any of them, then I don't really understand where you expect the political support for a federal abortion guarantee to come from. What is the magic number of seats that they have to win before they can take action? Which states are they realistically going to win? How many times does the public have to hand these losers a loving majority before we run out of excuses? Ciprian Maricon fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Jun 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 01:23
|
|
|
DEEP STATE PLOT posted:hold on let me check this 250-year-old document written by rich white slaveowners and i'll get back to you The funniest part of this is "the council of ancient wizards has ultimate power over everything" wasn't even in the really long slaver essay everyone believes controls everything in this country--the wizards themselves just declared they had this power decades later and everybody else was like "huh ok cool I guess" TyrantWD posted:A majority of people may want abortion to stay legal, but polls were done that asked people if the overturning of Roe v Wade made them more likely to participate in the mid-terms and 57% of voters said no. Only a third said yes. Alternatively, people may just be looking at history and the things people are telling them and concluding that even if they want to protect women's rights, voting in the midterms isn't gonna do poo poo on that front
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 01:28
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:
That is exactly the attitude that got us into this mess. Especially now more than ever, local races are going to determine whether abortion is legal in your state. It is time people recognize that women's rights just aren't that important to the American public. It is optional, like a lot more rights are about to be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 01:38
|
|
|
Framboise posted:Unless Democrats act on their words as well as Republicans do... not really, in my perspective. I think the sad truth is Americans - maybe all people, I can't say - are very adaptable, psychologically speaking. And I think people have gotten extremely used to one shocking regression after another. In the wake of an event like this there is a brief window where many people will be unmoored and looking for leadership, where they will be open to change and willing to join a cause. Who steps into that void in the next several weeks will basically decide what sort of hope we have. Because if we're supposed to just swallow this and live with existential dread until November with nothing but photoshopped revolutionary quotes posted on Twitter from Dems to show for it I think there's little to no hope. Edit: Basically the "do something" mentality is short hand for "please do something before this becomes normal." Because if the President isn't making headlines weekly about his next attempt to stop anti-choice freaks, it's going to become normal. It doesn't matter what he's allowed to do, he's supposed to fight. A warrior is not stymied by procedure. This is the most important attack on American rights in most of our lifetimes. It shouldn't be approached with the same gravity as tax reform. Mendrian fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Jun 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 01:45
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:That is exactly the attitude that got us into this mess. Where, do you think, this attitude stems from? Because it looks to me like it stems from lived experience: the Dems failing (or outright refusing) to protect vulnerable people's rights, even when they had supermajorities in Congress and the Presidency and a more amenable SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 01:50
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:That is exactly the attitude that got us into this mess No it didn't lol. This is a high school social studies level take. Voter apathy is downstream of the general public's disconnection from the levers of power, not upstream of it. You could certainly argue that the general public is responsible for assenting to a system that keeps power away from them by not physically dismantling it and I wouldn't call that categorically untrue, but the claim "this mess" is a direct consequence of people not earnestly participating hard enough in a system set up to disempower them is goofy
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 01:52
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:It's relevant because it skips a bunch of steps to just conclude "Manchin!!! Manchin's explanation for opposing the bill actually matters, because he didn't say "I support this bill but I don't believe in overturning the filibuster for it". He gave the same explanation that Collins and Murkowski give: claiming that he'd vote for a bill that only codified Roe and nothing else, but that the Democrats' bill went too far. Gripweed posted:Democrats have held both houses of Congress and the presidency for almost two years since then. Which brings me right back to what I said in the first place: they tried to codify Roe in this Congress, but failed because Manchin refused to back it. I realize you're mad, but that's no excuse for falling for poo poo that just straight-up isn't true. Ciprian Maricon posted:It is not a non-sequitur. Its not simple arithmetic that more Democrats = More votes for reproductive rights because as is shown by Pelosi's efforts to support Cuellar, party leadership is unwilling to have it be a litmus test. That's exactly why I didn't just say "more Democrats": I said "more Democrats who support codifying Roe".
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 01:53
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I think the sad truth is Americans - maybe all people, I can't say - are very adaptable, psychologically speaking. And I think people have gotten extremely used to one shocking regression after another. In the wake of an event like this there is a brief window where many people will be unmoored and looking for leadership, where they will be open to change and willing to join a cause. Who steps into that void in the next several weeks will basically decide what sort of hope we have. Because if we're supposed to just swallow this and live with existential dread until November with nothing but photoshopped revolutionary quotes posted on Twitter from Dems to show for it I think there's little to no hope. Joe Biden should resign in dishonor at the fact that this even happened on his watch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 01:53
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I thought I was fairly clear in my statement that passing laws against abortion bans wasn't seen as a particularly pressing matter when it was already legal to ban abortion. It's not like this is unique to the Dems, either. Leftist politicians like Bernie Sanders weren't exactly making codifying Roe their top priority; hell, they hardly mentioned it until Trump put a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. You are defending complete and utter incompetence. Everyone saw this coming for years and they did nothing about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 01:55
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That's exactly why I didn't just say "more Democrats": I said "more Democrats who support codifying Roe". Which seats? how many? which candidates? What is the plan here other than "vote more"
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 01:58
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Manchin's explanation for opposing the bill actually matters, because he didn't say "I support this bill but I don't believe in overturning the filibuster for it". He gave the same explanation that Collins and Murkowski give: claiming that he'd vote for a bill that only codified Roe and nothing else, but that the Democrats' bill went too far. lol are we talking about the same Joe Manchin who spent all of 2021 coming up with increasingly absurd and contradictory conditions for BBB until it was officially dead in the water and then admitted afterward that he never intended to vote for the bill and was just bullshitting everyone? That Joe Manchin? I understand it's convenient for you to take him at face value in this specific instance but the dude has said from his own mouth that he straight-up lies about this poo poo for tactical utility Is there a compelling reason to believe he's telling the truth this time, especially since his specific objection to the bill was something that he literally made up
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:09
|
|
|
Not voting at the federal level is just going to give the christofacists permenant majority rule, and turn the senate from "locked in a stalemate" to "actively working against us".
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:15
|
|
|
Only a true blue dnd poster could observe decades of GOP grassroots organizing that created a fervent consistent voter bloc that has allowed said GOP to systematically cement control of multiple state houses and governorships, which in turn allowed them to gerrymander Congressional districts and tilt congressional power in their favor over the medium/long term, then wield that power (in conjunction with tactically perfect use of the Senate filibuster when they didn’t control the House) to install multiple bat-poo poo crazy justices when they had the Presidency (who was also elected based on whipped up votes based upon racist/nationalistic fervor) and then conclude that voting is useless and of no hope. You can make a great case that Dem voters being lovely at midterm voting in 2010 is literally why we’re in this spot now. Tons of state houses got taken and it was a census year and we got totally hosed for the next decade.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:16
|
|
|
FlapYoJacks posted:You are defending complete and utter incompetence. Everyone saw this coming for years and they did nothing about it. Most people didn't see this coming until it was far too late. Sure it became obvious once Trump started winning primaries that he could win the whole thing and give his base what they want, but it was far too late at that point. Majorian posted:Where, do you think, this attitude stems from? Because it looks to me like it stems from lived experience: the Dems failing (or outright refusing) to protect vulnerable people's rights, even when they had supermajorities in Congress and the Presidency and a more amenable SCOTUS. Heck, if lived experience got people to give up and go home so easily, Roe v. Wade would have never been overturned. It took decades of constant failure to eventually get the win they wanted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:20
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Where, do you think, this attitude stems from? Because it looks to me like it stems from lived experience: the Dems failing (or outright refusing) to protect vulnerable people's rights, even when they had supermajorities in Congress and the Presidency and a more amenable SCOTUS. Denial, mostly, with a side order of social media disinformation. People descending into Twitter echo chambers and closing their eyes to the poo poo that is actually happening in the government is hardly unique to liberals, and results in leftists being excessively disillusioned, resulting in things like an abject refusal to take part in the political process at all, or loudly complaining that the Dems didn't try to do a thing that they actually in reality did try to do. Ciprian Maricon posted:Which seats? how many? which candidates? What is the plan here other than "vote more" If you want to get poo poo done politically, you don't just sit there and wait for Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to spoonfeed a course to you. You get out there yourself and start pushing for policies you support, whether by convincing the people around you, by getting out there and supporting potential candidates who back your preferred policies, or hell, if you really can't find anyone, go run for office yourself! There are at least 48 Senators who back both abolishing the filibuster and codifying Roe. So if you want Roe codified, then we have to get that number to at least 50. I'm quite sure there's at least two pro-choice Dems running for seats that are currently GOP-held. And if you think it is literally impossible for that to ever happen, then...what the hell are you expecting? If your stance is that more than half the states are anti-abortion, then the reason abortion isn't getting codified isn't because "Dems bad" - it's because the voters aren't backing it. If you think pro-abortion candidates can't win in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and Wisconsin, then I don't really know what to say. The left being so quick to write off red states as permanently unwinnable is a self-fulfilling prophecy. And that's just the 20 GOP-held states up for election in 2022. Those 20 states have 40 Senate seats, out of a total of 100 seats in the Senate. Add in the other red states like Georgia and Tennessee and well over half the country is written off as permanently conservative. It's time to stop complaining about bad Senate maps and start making inroads in those states any way we can.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:21
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Which brings me right back to what I said in the first place: they tried to codify Roe in this Congress, but failed because Manchin refused to back it. And what party does Joe Manchin belong to?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 13:49 |
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Most people didn't see this coming until it was far too late. Sure it became obvious once Trump started winning primaries that he could win the whole thing and give his base what they want, but it was far too late at that point. Again, you are defending complete and utter incompetence. “The dems where so terrible they could only get one piece of garbage legislation passed while having a supermajority.” Is not a good defense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:22
|
|